The differences between the statutes bearing on public health for England and Ireland / by E.D. Mapother.

  • Mapother, E. D. (Edward Dillon), 1835-1908.
Date:
[1864]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The differences between the statutes bearing on public health for England and Ireland / by E.D. Mapother. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    3/8 (page 3)
    into cattlo diseases in relation to supply of moat and milk; into the state of the agricultural labourers, the results of which caused such ulterestwhen the Union Chargeabihty Bill was being discussed in the House of Commons, as examples of the vitally important in- vestigations conducted during the last few years by Mr. Simon, the officer of the English Privy Council. Public health enactments for this country would be necessarily defective without similar prelimi- nary inquiries. By another section it was enacted that offensive trades cannot be instituted without the consent of the local board, and the owners are liable to a penalty of £50, and a further fine of £2 for every day the offence is continued. Its provisions concerning sewerage, waterworks, and pleasure- grounds seem more useful and generally applicable than those of any act bearing on Irish towns. With regard to pleasure grounds for the lower classes, no town can be worse provided than Dublin. In some of the poorer parts, accustomed to no play-ground save the noisome alley, the children present none of the features of child- hood. Many spaces from which houses have been removed might be paved and appropriated for such purposes, and I can see no objec- tion to opening and planting disused graveyards, as, for instance, St. Mar/s, for public walks, as has been done in other cities. It provides, lastly, for the establishment of reception houses for the dead; and although such might be repugnant to the feelings of the people of this country, I am forced to say, from the observation of many evils consequent upon the retention of the bodies of per- sons who have died of contagious diseases amongst the over- crowded living, that it would be highly judicious. The Nuisance Removal Acts, 1855 and i860, render the local authorities more general than do similar acts bearing on Ireland; for the guardians of the poor, or the inhabitants of anyplace, if amount- ing to two hundred, may appoint nuisances-removal committees and an inspector of nuisances; and there is, moreover, power of entry wdien the local authority or any of its officers “ have reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance exists on any private pre- mises.” In case the nuisance is one likely to recur, the justices may prohibit residence in such premises until they are rendered safe— a most powerful means of staying the spread of fever and other contagious diseases. A penalty of £200 may be inflicted if gas Avashings have been allowed to escape into any stream or other place for water, or any drain communicating thereAvith ; and heavy lines may be inflicted by the justices upon the OAvners of premises Avhere noxious trades are conducted, or from Avhich injurious efflu- via issue. The inspector may at any time seize all food unfit for human use Avhich may have been exposed for sale, or is being used, or landed from any ship, and the OAvner is liable to a fine of £10 ibr each unwholesome article. The 29th section is the most important, and that for Avhich avo h.'VA'c no substitute in Irish acts. It is as folloAvs :—“ Whenever the Medical Officer of Health, if tlicre be one, or if none, AA’henever